Opinion
2021-00317VI
01-19-2022
IN RE: ANIKA S. FIELDS ANIKA S. FIELDS Applicant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/22
Daniel R. Borchert Magistrate Judge
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
PATRICK E. SHEERAN JUDGE
{¶1} Anika Fields filed a claim, asking for compensation from the Victims of Crime fund for an alleged injury to herself caused by the offender. On October 26, 2018, the Attorney General issued a Finding of Fact and Decision denying Ms. Field's claim. The record is clear that Ms. Fields did not file any appeal from that Decision with this Court. In fact, Ms. Fields took no further action until over two years had passed, when she filed a supplemental claim, which was based on the 2018 claim. Because the supplemental claim involved the same set of facts as existed in the original claim, the Attorney General's Office sent Ms. Fields a letter that the supplemental claim filing was not appropriate, but, in the same letter, was told that the time for reconsideration of her original application had passed. Notwithstanding that, the Attorney General provided Ms. Fields with a Reconsideration Request Form, telling her that a late consideration could be proper, IF Ms. Fields could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Attorney General, that such reconsideration was in the interests of justice.
{¶2} Ms. Fields filed for Reconsideration, but the Attorney General decided that granting reconsideration was not in the interests of justice, and in March 2021, denied relief.
{¶3} On June 9, 2021, Ms. Fields filed an appeal with this Court, stating that the offender in the 2018 incident was convicted of disorderly conduct in February 2021. She also claimed that she was a victim of the offender since 2018, and that she had obtained an anti-stalking protection order from the Fulton County Common Pleas Court.
{¶4} On June 11, 2021, the Attorney General filed a Motion to Dismiss, noting that the Attorney General had not made a final determination of Ms. Field's claim. This Court respectfully disagrees, because in March, 2021, the Attorney General specifically denied the request for reconsideration made by Applicant. R.C. 2743.65 reads in pertinent part as follows:
A claimant may appeal an award of reparations, the amount of an award of reparations, or the denial of a claim for an award of reparations that is made by a final decision of the attorney general after any reconsideration. (Emphasis added).
{¶5} The fact is that the claim for reconsideration was permitted, and was ruled upon by the Attorney General in March of 2021. Thus, the argument of the Attorney General lacks merit.
{¶6} As a result, Applicant had the right to file an appeal with this Court, provided that the appeal was timely filed. However, the appeal in this case was not timely filed. As R.C. 2743.65(C) states:
{¶7} Notices of an appeal concerning an award of reparations shall be filed within thirty days after the date on which the award or the denial of a claim is made by a final decision of the attorney general. If a notice of appeal is not filed within the thirty-day period, the award or denial of the claim is final unless the court of claims in the interests of justice allows the appeal.
{¶8} There is nothing in the record before this Court that persuades it that the interests of justice require allowing an appeal in this case. The Applicant literally waited years to apply for reconsideration, and then, after being denied that relief, has belatedly come to this Court seeking relief from the 2018 Application.
{¶9} Having said that, this Court does note that the record presents an episode involving the same offender that took place in late 2020. As the Attorney General notes, the offender-the same one noted in the 2018 Application-entered a guilty plea to Disorderly Conduct in February 2021, regarding conduct aimed at this Applicant. There is no indication that the episode alleged in 2018 is tied-other than the name of the offender-to the episode in 2020. The two year plus difference in time is not a sufficient nexis by itself for this Court to combine the two episodes.
{¶10} Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss filed by the Attorney General is SUSTAINED, insofar as the 2018 Application is concerned. However, this Court agrees with the suggestion of the Attorney General that the 2020 episode be remanded for a proper investigation into that claim, to determine whether an award of reparations is warranted. Costs assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund.
Reply Memorandum of the Attorney General, at p. 2.
{¶11} It is so Ordered.